|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Wells 'n' shit 132 messages | Select a forum: |
| I'm sure there are plenty of petrified forests on TMA, Spencer? If you've got one that isn't you should add it. also, you may say my contributions are from the wrong era, and use that in favour of expanding the site's remit, but I so try to make sure they are interpretations and stories about things which are the right era. This site is specifically about prehistoric things. I'm not sure too much fuzziness around the edges is a good thing? I'm all for wells and suchlike but if there's no way of proving they're prehistoric then surely they have to be at least properly near a prehistoric site. Otherwise one could add any spring and well... there'd be more of those than anything else... and that would dilute all the proper prehistoric sites and anyone's ability to search through them. Likewise random hills and dips in the ground... if there's a good reason to think they're prehistoric then ok, back it up and add it. that's my opinion anyway Reply | with quote |  2nd February 2017ce 19:35 In reply to: Re: Wells 'n' shit (spencer) |
Messages in this topic: |
|